Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter3, Access to Records. Updated 5 May 2023. 68 Reasonable severability – section 8 of LA FOIP uses the phrase “can reasonably be severed.” LA FOIP does not elaborate on what constitutes reasonable severability. One principle that has emerged from decisions of other IPC offices and the courts is that information that would comprise of only disconnected or meaningless snippets is not reasonably severable and such snippets need not be released. In this regard, an important consideration is whether the degree of effort to sever the record is proportionate to the quality of information remaining in the record.139F 109 In SNC-Lavalin Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Public Works), (1994), the court held that “disconnected snippets of releasable information taken from otherwise exempt passages are not…reasonably severable110 and severance of exempt and nonexempt portions should be attempted only when the result is a reasonable fulfillment of the purposes of the Act.F 111 The process of reaching the conclusion that information is not reasonably severable is one which should be approached with caution. It is not an issue of “what purpose is to be served by disclosure” so much as an issue of “whether there is any information which is reasonably being conveyed by the exercise of severance. If there are more than disconnected snippets being disclosed, the information can be considered reasonably severable.112 Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the approach above in Merck Frosst Canada Ltd. v. Canada (Health), 2012 SCC 3 (CanLII), [2012] 1 SCR 23 and also suggested two types of analysis that are needed: [236] To begin, it is important to recognize that applying s. 25 is mandatory, not discretionary. The section directs that the institutional head “shall [not ‘may’] disclose any part of the record that does not contain” exempted information, provided it can reasonably be severed: see Dagg, at para. 80. Thus, the institutional head has a duty to ensure compliance with s. 25 and to undertake a severance analysis wherever information is found to be exempt from disclosure. [237] The heart of the s. 25 exercise is determining when material subject to the disclosure obligation “can reasonably be severed” from exempt material. In my view, this involves both a semantic and a cost-benefit analysis. The semantic analysis is concerned with whether what is left after excising exempted material has any meaning. If it does not, then the severance is not reasonable. As the Federal Court of Appeal put it in Blank v. Canada (Minister of the Environment), 2007 FCA 289, 368 N.R. 279, at para. 7, “those parts 109 ON IPC PHIPA Decision 52, HA15-8-2 at [57]. 110 SNC-Lavalin Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Public Works), (1994), 79 F.T.R. 113, 1994 CarswellNat 354, [1994] F.C.J. No. 1059 (Fed. T.D.) at [48]. 111 Canada (Information Commissioner) v. Canada (Solicitor General), [1998] 3 F.C. 551 (Fed. T.D.) at p.p. 558-559. 112 Astrazeneca Canada Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health), 2005 FC 189 at [104] to [105].
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==